Now it's a FELONY to write KKK on a window ledge!!!

[oldernwiser]

what happened to "do the crime do the time?" why do you oppose personal responsibility?

Why don't you go back and show me where I said that in the first place, then come back here and pull your head out of your ass.

The law's public knowledge. This idiot was certainly free to take some personal responsibility and look up the potential consequences for his actions before he acted, do you not agree? So let's assume he was personally responsible and knew he could face up to 5 years - and did it anyway? Don't you think given that he was willing to face those consequences, 90 days is a really good deal? And let's say he didn't take personal responsibility and had no idea what the penalty was. Well then, he didn't take personal responsibility, so fuck 'em, right?

Windbag has used the argument of mens rae in this case too. Could he have known that what he was doing was illegal? Or, could a reasonable person understand the wrongness of the act (no excuse for ignorance)? Either way, he was found to be culpable.

90 days plus 200 hours community service is an awesome deal. He'll pay a $1k fine to help him remember to play nice in the future too. And if he's really lucky, he won't get tagged in civil court too - but he's not off the hook on that yet.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And I showed you specifically in the law where it was NOT a separate crime, but an enhancement.

Look - if you're just going to ignore the facts because they don't fit your preconceptions, let us know. We won't waste the time discussing anything since you'll always be right regardless of the what the truth is.

That, sweetheart, IS the real world.

You showed me where the law says felony hate crime is an enhancement, not a crime in and of itself? Did I miss a post? Here is the law that you claim says is an enhancement.

A person commits hate crime when, by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals, regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors, he commits assault, battery, aggravated assault, misdemeanor theft, criminal trespass to residence, misdemeanor criminal damage to property, criminal trespass to vehicle, criminal trespass to real property, mob action or disorderly conduct as these crimes are defined in Sections 12-1, 12-2, 12-3(a), 16-1, 19-4, 21-1, 21-2, 21-3, 25-1, and 26-1 of this Code, respectively, or harassment by telephone as defined in Section 1-1 of the Harassing and Obscene Communications Act, or harassment through electronic communications as defined in clauses (a)(2) and (a)(4) of Section 1-2 of the Harassing and Obscene Communications Act.

See, not an enhancement, a crime. The things you think are separate crimes are all defined as elements of the crime of felony hate crime. If you don't believe me go ask a lawyer.

Read it again - or go back to page 23 at 4:08AM and RE-READ the explanation I gave there. You have to have one of the crimes I highlighted for you to begin with. If you can prove one of those, then this particular modifier can be applied if it can be further shown that the motivation for the crime was "by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals, regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors".

You are completely clueless, aren't you? Come back when you learn how the internet works.

Let me explain something to you, the options for this forum allow members to configure the time zone and how many posts are displayed in a single page, I have my settings configured in such a way that this entire thread is 11 pages long at this point in time, it is impossible for me to go to any page number above 11, so I cannot go to page 23 and find something that was written on a page that does not exist yet, and none of your posts were made at 4 AM my time. If you want me to go back and debunk a particular post you screwed up because you were posting in a sleep deprived state you need to either give me the post number or link to it.

What you are quoting there are elements of the crime. Let me try to explain it using another law from Illinois so you can see how lawyers write.

This is the stature that covers 1st degree murder in Illinois.

First they list the crime.

(a) A person who kills an individual without lawful justification commits first degree murder if, in performing the acts which cause the death:

Then they list the elements of the crime.

[/quote] (1) he either intends to kill or do great bodily harm
to that individual or another, or knows that such acts will cause death to that individual or another; or
(2) he knows that such acts create a strong
probability of death or great bodily harm to that individual or another; or
(3) he is attempting or committing a forcible felony
other than second degree murder.[/quote]


Then they list the aggravating factors of the crime.

(b) Aggravating Factors. A defendant who at the time of the commission of the offense has attained the age of 18 or more and who has been found guilty of first degree murder may be sentenced to death if:



(1) the murdered individual was a peace officer or
fireman killed in the course of performing his official duties, to prevent the performance of his official duties, or in retaliation for performing his official duties, and the defendant knew or should have known that the murdered individual was a peace officer or fireman; or...

Illinois Compiled Statutes 720 ILCS 5 Criminal Code of 1961. Section 9-1 - Illinois Attorney Resources - Illinois Laws

Everything is spelled out because that is the way the law works. Felony hate crime is done exactly the same way.

First they list the crime. then they define the elements of the crime, then they list the aggravating factors, except there aren't any aggravating factors because the crime is aggravated. If it worked the way you insist the law would be worded in a way that would force the prosecutor to charge him with vandalism first and then prove the aggravating factors of a hate crime the same way he has to prove the various aggravating elements of 1st degree murder to seek the death penalty.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

what happened to "do the crime do the time?" why do you oppose personal responsibility?

Why don't you go back and show me where I said that in the first place, then come back here and pull your head out of your ass.

What you seem to be wholly unappreciative of is that this is the will of the People of Illinois. Their judgement is better than yours about what is right for their state. They have decided that a crime of this type constitute a felony, punishable by up to 5 years. Yet you think that your judgement for what the law should be in Illinois is better than the People of Illinois! That's very elitist, and in no way could it be considered libertarian,conservative, or even American. Do you even live in Illinois?


BTW, statutes of these types have already passed Constitutional muster. In 1993 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Wisconsin v. Mitchell that hate crimes statutes of these types did not violated the 1st amendment. Because they require the defendant already be engaged in an act which would be illegal anyway, they do not chill the speech of law abiding bigots.

So you'll be happy to know - if you're a law abiding citizen - you can spew as much bigotry as you like, So go for it.

Why wasn't Arizona's judgement better than yours about what is good for their state? You have no business trying to argue with me on the basis of state's rights, a concept you clearly only want to use to trip me up. The way this works is that people have rights, and governments have powers. The rights of the individual always trump the power of the government. What we are discussing here is not state's rights, or my belief about what is good for Illinois. I care about people, not government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why don't you go back and show me where I said that in the first place, then come back here and pull your head out of your ass.

The law's public knowledge. This idiot was certainly free to take some personal responsibility and look up the potential consequences for his actions before he acted, do you not agree? So let's assume he was personally responsible and knew he could face up to 5 years - and did it anyway? Don't you think given that he was willing to face those consequences, 90 days is a really good deal? And let's say he didn't take personal responsibility and had no idea what the penalty was. Well then, he didn't take personal responsibility, so fuck 'em, right?

Windbag has used the argument of mens rae in this case too. Could he have known that what he was doing was illegal? Or, could a reasonable person understand the wrongness of the act (no excuse for ignorance)? Either way, he was found to be culpable.

90 days plus 200 hours community service is an awesome deal. He'll pay a $1k fine to help him remember to play nice in the future too. And if he's really lucky, he won't get tagged in civil court too - but he's not off the hook on that yet.

Damn, you are really stupid. You are actually starting to make PooP look smart, which is something that I thought was impossible.

I did not say that the guy did not know what he did was illegal, what I said was that it does not matter if he knew it or not under Illinois law.

 

[oldernwiser]

The law's public knowledge. This idiot was certainly free to take some personal responsibility and look up the potential consequences for his actions before he acted, do you not agree? So let's assume he was personally responsible and knew he could face up to 5 years - and did it anyway? Don't you think given that he was willing to face those consequences, 90 days is a really good deal? And let's say he didn't take personal responsibility and had no idea what the penalty was. Well then, he didn't take personal responsibility, so fuck 'em, right?

Windbag has used the argument of mens rae in this case too. Could he have known that what he was doing was illegal? Or, could a reasonable person understand the wrongness of the act (no excuse for ignorance)? Either way, he was found to be culpable.

90 days plus 200 hours community service is an awesome deal. He'll pay a $1k fine to help him remember to play nice in the future too. And if he's really lucky, he won't get tagged in civil court too - but he's not off the hook on that yet.

Damn, you are really stupid. You are actually starting to make PooP look smart, which is something that I thought was impossible.

I did not say that the guy did not know what he did was illegal, what I said was that it does not matter if he knew it or not under Illinois law.

Man, you are about as squirmy as any nightcrawler I ever dug up.
YOU brought up mens rae as a supporting argument - are YOU sure you knew what that meant?

Here's a hint for you since I've been holding your hand a nd reading along with you: He OUGHT to have known it was illegal - as any "reasonable person" would, and that's all they have to show. Course, he did go and swallow his foot when he gave the lame excuse for his actions.

Windbag, you were wrong. Not just a little wrong, but 100% wrong from the get-go. Admit it, and we can move on.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why don't you go back and show me where I said that in the first place, then come back here and pull your head out of your ass.

What you seem to be wholly unappreciative of is that this is the will of the People of Illinois. Their judgement is better than yours about what is right for their state. They have decided that a crime of this type constitute a felony, punishable by up to 5 years. Yet you think that your judgement for what the law should be in Illinois is better than the People of Illinois! That's very elitist, and in no way could it be considered libertarian,conservative, or even American. Do you even live in Illinois?


BTW, statutes of these types have already passed Constitutional muster. In 1993 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Wisconsin v. Mitchell that hate crimes statutes of these types did not violated the 1st amendment. Because they require the defendant already be engaged in an act which would be illegal anyway, they do not chill the speech of law abiding bigots.

So you'll be happy to know - if you're a law abiding citizen - you can spew as much bigotry as you like, So go for it.

Why wasn't Arizona's judgement better than yours about what is good for their state?

It isn't.

You have no business trying to argue with me on the basis of state's rights, a concept you clearly only want to use to trip me up.

Its not a states' rights argument.

The way this works is that people have rights, and governments have powers. The rights of the individual always trump the power of the government.

Not when that individual has committed a crime. Your understanding of how our system works is seriously flawed.

What we are discussing here is not state's rights, or my belief about what is good for Illinois. I care about people, not government.

The People of Illinois ARE people.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

What if the student had stood outside the dorm and screamed "KKK?"

Remove the vandalism, is it still a hate crime?

 

[editec]

What if the student had stood outside the dorm and screamed "KKK?"

Remove the vandalism, is it still a hate crime?

Probably... if they were screaming KKK to people who had reason to see that as a threat.

 

[oldernwiser]

What if the student had stood outside the dorm and screamed "KKK?"

Remove the vandalism, is it still a hate crime?

Actually, no.

It's not a crime to yell anything. So the enhancement wouldn't have a crime to attach itself to.

Could it still be enough to get him kicked out of school? Maybe.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What if the student had stood outside the dorm and screamed "KKK?"

Remove the vandalism, is it still a hate crime?

Yes.

A disturbing the peace citation would be used to carry the thought crime and he would still be convicted of felony hate crimes.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually, no.

It's not a crime to yell anything. So the enhancement wouldn't have a crime to attach itself to.

Could it still be enough to get him kicked out of school? Maybe.

Actually, yes.

Europe has a long tradition of passing absurd laws that regulate everything from table manners to flatulence. The populace generally ignores the laws as do the governments. So one might question what the purpose of the laws are? Well, the fact is that every person in Belgium is breaking dozens of laws each and every day. So should a person become a bother or annoyance to the rulers, it is a simple matter of just enforcing one of the millions of absurd and petty laws, allowing a political arrest to be masked as legitimate.

The same is true here, the laws against speech are masked through the use of absurd ancillary laws. Had he shouted "KKK" then the authorities would have arrested him for disturbing the peace and still convicted him of the thought crime of felony hate. Or if it were before 8:00 they would have found him double parked and still convicted him of the thought crime of felony hate.

He was convicted of using outlawed words, that is the fact. The anti-liberty left has struck yet another blow against basic civil rights.

 

[MarcATL]

What if the student had stood outside the dorm and screamed "KKK?"

Remove the vandalism, is it still a hate crime?

"What if the guy wasn't drunk while driving...would it still be considered a DUI?"

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What if the student had stood outside the dorm and screamed "KKK?"

Remove the vandalism, is it still a hate crime?

Illinois state law will tell you.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What if the student had stood outside the dorm and screamed "KKK?"

Remove the vandalism, is it still a hate crime?

Actually, no.

It's not a crime to yell anything. So the enhancement wouldn't have a crime to attach itself to.

Could it still be enough to get him kicked out of school? Maybe.

Disturbing the peace can be a crime. By for a hate crime enhancement to be added, the statute must specifically state it can be added to that crime.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What if the student had stood outside the dorm and screamed "KKK?"

Remove the vandalism, is it still a hate crime?

Yes.

A disturbing the peace citation would be used to carry the thought crime and he would still be convicted of felony hate crimes.

I don't see disturbing the peace listed here:

A person commits hate crime when, by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals, regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors, he commits assault, battery, aggravated assault, misdemeanor theft, criminal trespass to residence, misdemeanor criminal damage to property, criminal trespass to vehicle, criminal trespass to real property, mob action or disorderly conduct as these crimes are defined in Sections 12-1, 12-2, 12-3(a), 16-1, 19-4, 21-1, 21-2, 21-3, 25-1, and 26-1 of this Code, respectively, or harassment by telephone as defined in Section 1-1 of the Harassing and Obscene Communications Act, or harassment through electronic communications as defined in clauses (a)(2) and (a)(4) of Section 1-2 of the Harassing and Obscene Communications Act.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Actually, no.

It's not a crime to yell anything. So the enhancement wouldn't have a crime to attach itself to.

Could it still be enough to get him kicked out of school? Maybe.

Actually, yes.

Europe

Is a long way away and completely irrelevant to this discussion.

has a long tradition of passing absurd laws that regulate everything from table manners to flatulence. The populace generally ignores the laws as do the governments. So one might question what the purpose of the laws are? Well, the fact is that every person in Belgium is breaking dozens of laws each and every day. So should a person become a bother or annoyance to the rulers, it is a simple matter of just enforcing one of the millions of absurd and petty laws, allowing a political arrest to be masked as legitimate.

The same is true here, the laws against speech are masked through the use of absurd ancillary laws. Had he shouted "KKK" then the authorities would have arrested him for disturbing the peace and still convicted him of the thought crime of felony hate. Or if it were before 8:00 they would have found him double parked and still convicted him of the thought crime of felony hate.

He was convicted of using outlawed words, that is the fact. The anti-liberty left has struck yet another blow against basic civil rights.

The statute would not appear to provide an enhancement for disturbing the peace. Juries are given specific charges to consider, if the prosecution gives a charge that doesn't actually exist in law the job of defense attorney is made so easy even morons like you could hack it.

 

[Ravi]

I doubt screaming KKK randomly would be considered a hate crime. Something else would have to show an intent to intimidate. Though in Florida I believe if you scream KKK at someone you could legally be shot.

How cool is that?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I doubt screaming KKK randomly would be considered a hate crime. Something else would have to show an intent to intimidate. Though in Florida I believe if you scream KKK at someone you could legally be shot.

How cool is that?

lol!

Some of the folks on this board honestly think the Bill of Rights was passed to protect the rights of criminals.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Windbag has used the argument of mens rae in this case too. Could he have known that what he was doing was illegal? Or, could a reasonable person understand the wrongness of the act (no excuse for ignorance)? Either way, he was found to be culpable.

90 days plus 200 hours community service is an awesome deal. He'll pay a $1k fine to help him remember to play nice in the future too. And if he's really lucky, he won't get tagged in civil court too - but he's not off the hook on that yet.

Damn, you are really stupid. You are actually starting to make PooP look smart, which is something that I thought was impossible.

I did not say that the guy did not know what he did was illegal, what I said was that it does not matter if he knew it or not under Illinois law.

Man, you are about as squirmy as any nightcrawler I ever dug up.
YOU brought up mens rae as a supporting argument - are YOU sure you knew what that meant?

Here's a hint for you since I've been holding your hand a nd reading along with you: He OUGHT to have known it was illegal - as any "reasonable person" would, and that's all they have to show. Course, he did go and swallow his foot when he gave the lame excuse for his actions.

Windbag, you were wrong. Not just a little wrong, but 100% wrong from the get-go. Admit it, and we can move on.

Yes, I know what I meant, I was pointing out that mens rae is not a subject of hate crime laws. So far you keep insisting things that simply do not apply to the law in Illinois, like your lame attempt to insist that he was found guilty of vandalism prior to be convicted of a hate crime.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What you seem to be wholly unappreciative of is that this is the will of the People of Illinois. Their judgement is better than yours about what is right for their state. They have decided that a crime of this type constitute a felony, punishable by up to 5 years. Yet you think that your judgement for what the law should be in Illinois is better than the People of Illinois! That's very elitist, and in no way could it be considered libertarian,conservative, or even American. Do you even live in Illinois?


BTW, statutes of these types have already passed Constitutional muster. In 1993 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Wisconsin v. Mitchell that hate crimes statutes of these types did not violated the 1st amendment. Because they require the defendant already be engaged in an act which would be illegal anyway, they do not chill the speech of law abiding bigots.

So you'll be happy to know - if you're a law abiding citizen - you can spew as much bigotry as you like, So go for it.

Why wasn't Arizona's judgement better than yours about what is good for their state?

It isn't.


Its not a states' rights argument.

The way this works is that people have rights, and governments have powers. The rights of the individual always trump the power of the government.

Not when that individual has committed a crime. Your understanding of how our system works is seriously flawed.

What we are discussing here is not state's rights, or my belief about what is good for Illinois. I care about people, not government.

The People of Illinois ARE people.

I never said it was a state's powers issue, you did, I was just pointing out that you arguing in favor of it in one instance and against it in another makes you look stupid. My argument is that the law is flat out wrong, and that no government anywhere on the planet should be making laws that are wrong.

I get to say things like that because I always argue from the position that individual liberty is more important than collective anything. This is obviously going to cause miscarriages of justice where people get away with doing things that are reprehensible and offensive quite often. It is even going to result in people getting away with doing things that are flat out wrong. The system is not perfect, but it works a lot better than a system where laws are based on what is good for everyone, because nothing is good for everyone.

You want to try to argue that there are times when collective identity trumps individual rights, and then you want to argue about which collective has more power depending solely on your position on the issue, which only tracks if we assume that you are always right. Since we know that no one is always right, your position is absurd.